Zoning Board of Adjustment - Regular Meeting

Danielle, you want to read the notice? In accordance with chapter 231 PL 1975, the open public meetings act, adequate notice of this meeting has been provided as required, specifying the time and location with such notice as being sent to the Asbury Park and the time of posted on the municipal public notice meeting bulletin board and filed with the township clerk. Thank you. I'd like to invite everybody to stand for a flag salute and at the end we will stand for a moment of silence to those who serve and currently serve our country. To the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you everyone. Technical difficulty. Please stand by. Just got an error message. I just want to make sure.

Okay. Good. All right. Roll call. Chairman Mustin here. Mr. Ara here. Mr. Katigan here. Mr. Lamrose here. Mr. Shha here. And Mr. Baramus is absent. Um we do expect Mr. Ferrar and Mr. Borizi. I did speak to them both today. So minutes um or have any public comments or anything else first. Um just give them a couple minutes. See if we wander in momentarily. Yes. And maybe Greg if you want to put on record about the application today, we can get that out of the way too.

Oh yes. We've already provided Mr. tape, but as far as she's already listened to the tape, she's eligible to vote and sign certification. Oh, yes, I did twice. Oh, she did the approval of minutes. You cancelled the other meetings. We're going to do that next. Yeah, skip public comment. We'll do public comment. Anybody here for anything that's not on the agenda? No. Seeing no one, we'll skip right over that. Um, approval of minutes from January 28th for our reorg and regular meeting. I know they came out late, but uh they were pretty straightforward. If anybody else had any questions, comments, or concerns? No. Um abstain from that. I wasn't at the meeting. That's right.

Yes. Anybody want to table it? You want to make a motion to approve? Motion to approve. Okay, there we go. I'll second. Thank you. Thank you. And thank you for your patience with that. I apologize with the snow day. I was a little thrown off with getting them out to you guys earlier. It's okay. Chairman Mos. Yes. Uh Mr. Kadian. Yes. Mr. Lamros. Yes. And Mr. S. Yes.

Thank you. Uh if while we wait a couple seconds just so the board's aware um if you wear uh I don't think we had decision the last meeting but if you remember the winding brook application uh which was the applicant uh was using the property for his tree removal company business. Oh yeah.

Okay. They um they did go file an application to the a board that got denied. They did file a suit against this board. Uh we had a trial a couple weeks ago. Uh the court affirmed our decision that got dismissed. Uh I know they're appealing the aboard decision. I was aware I've been advised of that. I have not seen if they're appealing our decision yet. Uh they were supposed to have court on their violations on Monday, but got a reprieve because of 24 ines of snow. Okay. But from our end, we got affirmed. Okay. Good.

Sounds good. Thank you. Appreciate the update. All right. Anything else we need to do? Otherwise, we're stalling and delaying more. We do have a quorum. We do have a quorum. Well, well, it is. Was there an annual report here? No, not yet. Do we need to go over anything else with the car application or we're good? No, it's awfully quiet. I may take a nap. I know. It's usually not this quiet in here. It's not usually this quiet. Who watched the Olympics?

I tried to watch as much as possible. Yeah. There's a homecoming tonight where Jack Hughes is going to be coming home to Oh, is he? Game's already started. Did he get like Did he get some caps at least for his team? Oh my goodness. That was funny. I have to tell you, I don't understand why they just don't pull all their teeth out and wear dentures. It would just be so much more sufficient. Okay, take them out, play your game, put them on, smile bright. Listen, I don't think that was the first time he lost his teeth. No, I doubt they were real teeth. And they're not even phased by it. That would hurt. I'd be crying like a baby. Crooked like they're perfect.

Yes. So jagged. Well, he's only 24 years old. That is a joke to have dentures. And he looks like a baby. When they had him on television next day, I was like, "No, that can't be." The guy kids like this, you know, they take all the clothes off when he's just a little person. Yeah. It was a nice game to watch though in the morning. Oh, yeah. I still remember Sunday morning in 198. I remember that. I was driving my mother's station wagon and I everybody started honking their horns and fleshing their lights. I pulled over and turned the radio on and listened to

I spoke on both today. They were both coming and they're not answering phone calls. All right, that means I ain't coming. I say we started we will move on. Yeah. All right. So, go. All right. We are going to continue our application for Mr. Merkel and Miss Mark.

Okay. Uh, since the last meeting which was November 13, 2025, we did introduce three other additional items which are marked as A17 extension of time to act through February 2826. A18 NJDP LOI permit dated December 23rd, 2025 with associated map and A19 copy of conservation easement to NJP filed 130 2022. Uh Mr. Pap uh we don't think we have any revised plans. So we have exhibits this evening where we have plotted the results of the D permit to show you. Okay.

But the plans remain the plans. So if if I may Kenneth B on behalf of the applicant, Daniel Merkel, this is an application for variance relief. Um as the board is aware in 2017, Mr. Merkel came before this board and received certain relief. That relief um had conditions. Some of those conditions were not met. Uh we identified on the record that there was some construction that was done on his home that was intended to be consistent with the approvals for which construction building permits were issued, but there were there were discrepancies that were identified and we're put those on the record. Um so there was discrepancies between what was approved and what was built. Mr. Merkel is also asking for some additional relief and the additional relief includes the construction of a garage structure with an attic, 12x 24 shed for his goats, um fencing for his goats and ducks, and a duck run conversion of the batting cage that was there. As Mr. Merkel indicated when we were here the last time, this is not a business operation. And this is his family's his this is driven by the fact that his family has pets. They have dogs. They have still three goats.

Three goats. Three goats. Still four ducks. Still four. The last time the one goat was sick. Hospital. He had surgery. He's okay. Okay.

Had to change their diet a little bit so we don't have to go through that either. And the last thing that we had when at the end of the meeting we had presented the plans showing those revisions we had present Mr. Merkel took us through the history of the errors that he had made um and we identified them on the record and asked for relief. Um and Allison Coffin who is here this evening is a planner. She presented the testimony that supported the variance requests that were made. And there were two things that happened at the end of the meeting. One was we had told you that we had a D application that was pending now for about a year and a half. We kept thinking that it was going to be in our hands and and it wasn't until just recently the permit was issued. Um so that D permit was issued.

Bless you. Thank you.

The significance bless you. The significance of that D permit is that it identifies the from the DP's perspective the constrained portion of the property and we had asked the board to allow the township's conservation easement to be coincidental with the DP's requirements and we were unable to identify those requirements with certainty until that permit was issued. The permit is issued and there was the very last thing that happened was that Mr. Chairman you asked Mr. Merkel to do something. You asked him as a sign of good faith to take down one of the sheds immediately and a week after you asked that shed was taken down. The shed is there is a second shed that we have an obligation to take down. But it's hard to take it down with the goats living in it until we have the opportunity to build a replacement for the goats. Uh but the commitment that was made in 2017 and continues that building will come down. This evening I intended to present first Garrett Esler. He is the environmental scientist who worked on the D permit and he his firm secured the permit. Um and I've asked that he identify what was approved and Lauraai has prepared two plans. One called the wetland plan and one called the permit plan. wetlands shows you the actual wetlands as the state has ruled and the permit plan shows the transition averaging of certain buffers. You can average a buffer by enhancing one side in an equal square footage of where you're asking for relief. So the first two we'll present to you through Garrett will be the wetland approval and the second will be the permit plan. The third exhibit will be presented by Lauraai. We've asked Lauraai Totten who

Peter's in Florida for the winter. So Lauraai Totten is here in hisstead. Uh Lauraai, we've asked Lauraai to plot on Mr. Merkel's property what the conservation ement would be. U and just a little sneak preview on that. Mr. Merkel's property was originally just a little bit under three little bit over three acres in size. There were dedications that were requested at the 2017 dedications to the town. 44 acres for road widening and dedications to the county 33 acres or a total of 78 of his acres were removed and became public lands for road improvements. We start with a property that now is a little over two acres. And I tell you all of that because the conservation easement that would be consistent with what the DP has determined should be in the conservation easement is just about 1.3 acres. So of his remaining two acres, 1.3 would be in a conservation ement. So that's the sneak preview will present. I'm going to ask if Garrett could join us. I'll remind him that he is under oath. And Mr. Esler, if you could um

Okay. Yeah. Mr. Esler, uh please provide you were sworn in at the last meeting and you were still on the road. Please just state your name for the record. Garrett Esler. And Mr. Esso was qualified as an environmental scientist at the last meeting and I asked that he continue in that capacity. Since we were here in November, um you delivered a DP uh approval letter. If you could share with the board what was secured, what the the actual permit uh approval and permit uh was. They've already been delivered to your the permits have been delivered to the township, but if you could describe what they are.

Sure. We received two authorizations from the D. The first one was a letter of interpretation or commonly known as an LOI line verification. So that uh received official Determination for the full extent of the wetlands and associated buffers with the property. The second approval that we received was a transition area waivering plan which um called out for the reduction of a certain amount of square feet on the subject property and for the compensation of other wetland buffers to mitigate that reduction of the wetland buffers.

The exhibits that are before the board include the stamp permit from the stamp plans. It's the stamp pos in the upper right hand corner. Perhaps if you could is this microphone travel with him? Yeah. Take us on. You're being recorded and you're on television. So keep that microphone. Is this the same plan that you previously submitted to the board or is it new? This one is this absent the stamp. What is there anything different on that plan as the plan or chairman has in front of him? uh looks like a dated 93024.

Yes, I believe there was one change between the So the first I'll get into that. So the first plan is the LOI plan. This was we let's slow down cuz you haven't submitted this to the board yet. Sorry. Right. So A we're going to mark as A20. It was the permit. Okay. Yeah. A is the associated. Okay. A A20 is we'll call it enlarged. I like that. Okay. Uh will you LOI permit plan? Yep. Okay.

So, so the record is complete. Um would you read the the date of this plan and the date of the stamp and then tell us what's on this plan? Sure. So the date of the plan is 9:3024 with a revision date per environ tactics for DP submission of 101325 and the date of the permit. Sure. And so it received an NJT NJP approved stamp date on 122325. Now if you could just tell us what we're looking at.

Sure. So this plan shows the exact NJP approved extent of the freshwater wetlands on the subject property as well as the associated buffers uh for those wetlands. The plan does also include buffers from an offsite wetland extending from block 57 lot 13.03. And perhaps you could with your finger trace the wetlands on that plan just so the board can see you. Sure. So starting on the leftand corner at B7 for the flag. You're off the property there.

Yeah, you're off the property there. You continue onto the property between flag B4 and A20. Continuing on up through the property to the corner of Trenton Lakewood Road and Burnt Tavern Road at A12 at the apex. Coming back down Trenton Lakewood Road into the subject property from A5 all the way to A1 which is off the subject property. Again,

those are delineated wetlands. And what what characterization are those wetlands? So they those were determined to be intermediate resource value. So um basically no uh concern for threatening endangered species and those carry a 50-ft wetland buffer. If you could go to the next page, the the actual permitting plan, if you could do the same thing, the date of this plan and the date of the stamp, and then I'll ask that you explain this to the board members.

Certainly. So the date of this plan is September 30th, 2024. It has a last revised date per the NJD review of 12825 and it has an NJT approval stamp of 122325. And this plan is intended to show the relief that was granted to Mr. Merkel. So, a portion of the buffer is going to be removed from the buffer and a portion of the buffer is going to be enhanced in a um square foot per square foot exchange. Could you walk us through that?

That's correct. So, um starting off of the buffer reduction, we proposed and received approval for the reduction of 4,351 square ft, which encompasses this area on the plan. It is shaded as so. Um that shows the proposed building as well as the shed and other fencing areas along this piece of the property. We propose to compensate for the reduction on the I don't see our north arrow along the side of Trenton Lakewood Road for the amount of 4,417 square footage. So we are proposing more compensation than what we are reducing.

And the area that is being reduced, that's the lawn area around Mr. Merkel's house. And it was important to Mr. Merkel that he be allowed to maintain his lawn. That is correct. Okay. That's the relief that the D granted. Those permits are in place. The U next exhibit and I have nothing further of of Garrett. he is available to all. The next exhibit is one that was prepared by Crest that takes all of that information and then identifies the conservation easement that would result that we're asking that you accept. So here's available for your exam.

Ask a question. There's a lawn area with some fence in the wetlands and a buffer area. Are you removing those? No, we are not removing the fencing. I'm looking at your approval special condition number seven. It says not to maintain as a lawn or landscaped area the special the bunch of conditions you have to remove this remove this no lawns. Correct. So, well, so we confirmed with Avery Thomas through email that we can can submit to the board if needed that the lawn area could

about the lawn underneath that's right there. This lawn area here, it's in a wetlands and a buffet area. So again, this is what this is all the area that we confirmed with Avery Thomas, who was the D&J DP reviewer, that these lawn areas could be maintained because they were pre-existing at the time of the freshwater wetland rules. When did you have that conversation? Because it's not We have an email thread that we can share with in here. We have an email thread with Avery Thomas. Um I can present that as an exhibit. that they say you could keep the fence in the wetland area which is on the property line. That's the correct talking about and the lawn and garden area. Correct. You can keep all those.

Yes. So, aren't you required to file this permit with the county? Yes.

Right. So, the permit that's filed is not you're saying is not accurate. So, you're going to have to get a new permit to file it. email changers is not gonna cut it because you have a file permit that specifically pro prohibits what you're doing. So, you need a new permit to file or we can't approve it. Right? I mean, as a condition of approval, if you have a filed permit that doesn't permit something and some guy at the D sends you an email and says, "Yeah, just forget about that condition." That's not good enough, right? Could you have a filed document with the county saying you can't do that? It I and you may be 100% accurate. I'm not questioning that. But he's got to modify this permit. You're going to have to refile it.

Uh we won't have to refile the whole permit. We can request for an administrative modification of the permit. Same thing. Yeah. We when this came out, we immediately reached out to Avery Thomas who is the person who's responsible for the permit and there was a confirmation that the maintained lawn areas and the fencing associated with it could remain and did not have to go into any conservation ement. But if this board were comfortable, I'll show you the conservation ement that we propose. And if the board is comfortable and requires as a condition that we return to the D for that revision, that's an acceptable.

Yeah, I don't I don't think we have a choice. Um, and if they said they're going to do it, doesn't seem that hard, right? Um, so, but yeah, you're going to have to do that. And I think the next followup question is in your DP wet, you're you have here, maybe you could just quickly testify so we're all on the same page. What structures do you you have in the wetlands and wetlands buffer? Because it seems they only approve two sheds, a concrete walkway, right? So the the transition area averaging plan is only calling out the structures that are specifically within the area that's being reduced. That's what you're proposing.

That's what we're proposing. The averaging plan isn't going to call out any other structures associated with the uh with this with the subject property. So, it's not going to call out the rest of the home. It's not going to call out the rest of the fencing. The permit itself is only going to be associated the language in the permit is associated with this reduction area. However, the DP would have stamped approved a plan if there were known issues or violations with the freshwater wetlands rule. If there were, they would have made us remove and propose to remove those structures from the plan before they gave us a stamped approved plan from them.

That that was that was I was surprised. I didn't see any mention of those violations and condition says you can't have them but there's no mention on your plan saying to be removed to stay or anything right so a couple of things to maybe add a little bit more information D uses a lot of the times templates when they produce their permits many of these conditions are from that template so it's very likely that they issued those conditions in error and we can request an administrative modification You're going to get something from D which would be filed that's going to say that little fence at the back could stay.

No. So the administrative modification won't call out the fencing because the fencing wasn't a part of the averaging plan. So the averaging plan is only focused on the redu reduced area and the compensation area. It's not going to call out any of the other portions of the property of any existing structures. But what we can do is contact Avery, request an administrative modification to request that the conditions are altered to reflect the conditions of the site. This is a little fence you have back there, the lawn area and the two sheds are coming out or one at a time. What was it story with the sheds? One's gone and one will come out

after the new one goes in. We need a go structure. So we're down to basically D saying it's okay to leave the tiny fence back there and the lawn could stay as a lawn. Correct. Worth remind. So Garrett was at the D and he was the he he handled the permit for this property the first time. So he has had an intimate familiarity with the property and the people with whom he was working at the D. But if so, so no conflict of interest. No conflict of interest because that permit figured I'd ask. Yeah. No, that that permit was already approved because it's no longer p pending. There's no conflict of interest.

So if you get that modification from you or state and file it somehow. So I think that should be fine with because there is a violation by uh zoning officer that this would address those. Yeah. I I think you need to make it very very specific from the D. You have a violation from the town for having structures in a in an easement area. I tell the emails just don't qualify as permit as a removal of permit conditions.

We did bring the entire email thread, but let's we'll we'll leave it off of the table. We'll accept the the the responsibility of going to the D for the administrative position. I would like to show you what the one what the conservation easement looks like because it is very significant the amount of property that will be preserved both in a township conservation ement and in the D's conservation ement if I may. I'm going to ask Garrett to sit and bring up to have her present the next exhibit. No, I think that was the biggest issue that was still confusing us is why you had structures in a buffer area/wetlands area but not approved from the DAP. So if you're saying they're going to give you the approval. Okay.

Yeah. But are they getting the approval on the fencing also? That's a condition. That'd be a condition of approval. Right. Right. So that they can't do anything until they get that. My condition specifically says they need to get amended permit showing the lawn and fence to remain is approved by the DAP and filed with the county. No permits until receipt and approved by the board engineer. Right. Okay. I just I in in the language of what Garrett's saying, I I feel like that's not even a plausible idea with the EP. So, do you think that that's a plausible idea? Sure. Absolutely. Yeah. Because of pre-existing conditions. Okay.

And if the DP says no, he's got to remove it. Not you know, it's one of those outside agency approvals. You know, that's it's up to them. If they say yes, they could keep it. They say no, they got to get rid of it. So in my in my opinion a grass seems like the grass area would be moved, you know, whether it's wetlands or not to maintain it. But if it's wetlands and buffer, you can't mow it. He's got goats. They took the position maintain. It was a maintain lawn. The DP took the position to maintain law. All right. It's okay. Whatever the DP says, at least we clarified that issue.

One one last question. So they approved their walkway, garage, storage, and all that stuff. What about the fence that you're proposing in the buffer area? So again, this comes back to what we had discussion with Avery that because it was deemed as existing maintained lawn, we'd be able to put that fencing in, but because that fence isn't associated with the averaging plan. That's the reason why it wasn't called out in the initial approved activities. Do you have a comfort level that it will be saying it's approved or

right? So because the way that the D treats a pre-existing maintained lawn is that they recognize that it it is associated with a buffer area but they still allow for certain activities to be done within the maintained lawn without needing to receive D approval. One of them is mowing your lawn. The second is constructing a fencing because they're seen as very minor improve uh disturbances that aren't actually going to affect a natural wetland buffer, but for a maintained lawn, it's seen as acceptable. So, typically landscaping those other types of that's a fencing that has no concrete base basically. Correct. That's what I understand.

Yes. And but but any substantial improvement like a building that would need D approval, right? That's why the one shed still has to come out. Correct. All right. Thank you.

Just I'm sorry. Before we move on, be the D whatever they say rules, but typically if a applicant homeowner is going to keep something in a conservation area, they have to get approval from the township committee. Do they still have to do that level now? Well, well, that that's the next question because I he was going to say he was going to show where the conservation area is. So, that that was going to be a followup whether does the wetlands and buffer match the conservation easement, right? And if the answer is yes, which it should, okay, then they still need approval from since you're given that conservation easement, you have to get approval from the town. But it's obviously easier to get approval from the town if you have D approval already.

I jumped ahead. to no the conservation e let's let's get that conservation right because that's the next step I know you were getting to that because there's a question that the cons the wetlands and the buffers and the transition waiverss all of that is proposed in the conservation easement accepting out the maintained lawn area that the D allowed so we're asking for the de follow the same guideline that you're you're going to we'll have Laura lie she explain it and your position is going to be you want the same the town to give the same type of approvals the D does when you get the corrected D approval. Is that fair to understand? It's fair. Yes. Okay.

Very good. So Laura Tatton is a professional engineer. Her credentials are not on the record and she is Yeah. Miss Tom, please raise your right hand. You swear affirm the following testimony about to give us the whole truth. Nothing but the truth. I do. Please state your name for record spelling your last name. Lauraai Taten T and Tom O ten Crest Engineering Associates in Milstone Township, New Jersey. My PE license is uh good and in effect and has been for a couple years. And you're not And you're And you're not in Florida with Peter. And I'm not in Florida with Peter. Yes. It's cold up here. Yes. Well, at least it's warmer than the last meeting. Yeah.

Uh yes. So Laurel, I we've asked that you prepare an exhibit that identifies the extent of the conservation easement that would be dedicated both to the DP and to the township. If you could identify the plan by its title and date and then Yes, this is called proposed improvement display. It was it's dated 10225 revised 22526. And I think the most important thing is to identify the conservation easement that would be offered to the township and the county.

I'll mark that as 822 proposed improvement plan with a last revision date of today. Thank you.

Okay. So, this is a blowup of the area of the property where the home is located and all of the areas of concern. Uh, this green highlighter line runs along the outside edge of the enhanced buffer along the property line and then continues uh with the wetlands and along the dotted line which is the result of the lot. after the dedications were given up along uh a 50-foot revised uh wide buffer accepting the area that the DP has indicated could remain as lawn down along that edge to the wetlands line through the along again the maintained lawn area on the other side of the wetlands line and then crosses through the wetlands along the property line back to the place and point of beginning. And this area is approximately 1.3 acres in size.

The portion that's outside of that the nose is the port that's the that's already been dedicated to the town and to the county. So the only portion that would remain available to Mr. Merkel and his family is the property that's north of the green line. Do I make a good banana white? Yes. So, the only area that is different if if you drew the wetlands and wetlands buffer line, the only area is that lawn box area that we've talked we've just talked about where the shed is. What's that area? What's over there?

This is also uh the green dotted area on each side. That is the area that NJD indicated could rem that's lawn that they indicated could remain as lawn. The blue area in the middle that's the area that is the buffer averaging being taken away from the buffer as Mr. Pave described and replaced with the area along uh Trenton Lakewood Road uh in this area for enhanced buffer. All right. Just so I'm clear with my notes, there's two lawn areas that you're telling me the DP says it's okay.

Maintain lawn, right? And the what we have now doesn't say you can maintain them, but you're going to get that as a condition of approval. So, I want to make sure it's two lawn areas, one to the left and one front right, but they are connected. Well, you know what I mean. Yes. But two big areas. Yes. Okay. Yes. The approved D plan does show the two lawn areas to be maintained, but there's nothing in the permit that says permit says you can't have it, right? Yeah. So, he's got you got to clear that up and the plan says you can't. And maybe you know someone that works at the D or someone who used to work at the D. Okay. Good.

Mr. chair other than to repeat representations that were made previously which Mr. Merkel is prepared to do and so is Miss Coffin if requested. That is the applicant's presentation. We're asking for permission to incorporate the modifications to the home that were made those an extra man door. There was 72 square feet of additional

Ken may maybe we sorry to cut you off. It's been a while. Okay. And I think we've gone through what you need for the DP. I see you have your wonderful planner here. I know she testified at the last one. Maybe she could just come up and just go over. By the way, we've gone through this. Here are the actual variances we need as a reminder what we're going to vote on. That would be perfect cuz I you know it's November. I don't you know. No, I watched it yesterday again. You guys all should have watched it. I should have rewatched it. I mean I that is that is that is that good for the board so they get a kind of refresher of the actual variances. This stuff is all outside agency approval stuff. Let's talk about some stuff that we have control of.

Okay. One thing I have is the zoning officer's clearance of the violation and that'll also coincide with the updated D coincide with we're scheduled to appear before judge son before judge we're going to take she kept moving it so that it was on the outside date of this hearing so so we go miss coffin you you she you testified at the last one please be advised you're still under oath okay and I think we could just kind of go to hey testified before just so you're aware these are the variances we need after we've now corrected all the conservation easement wetlands issues alike

sure I I don't think the changes with the conservation easement and the wetlands made any changes to the variances there's a D1 variance for the use because we're expanding the the house that was approved by variance there's a D4 variance for F uh existing unchanged or the lot area and sideyard setbacks And the new variances proposed are front yard setback to the garage edition, sideyard setback to the garage edition, and accessory structure, sideyard setback, and the minimum distance between structures. Uh the special reasons for the use variance uh exist that it advances the purposes of the MLU well uh due to the particular suitability of the site. In 2017, the board found the site particularly suitable for residential use due to the lot's small size, a significant area of wetlands and wetlands buffers, and there has been no significant changes in the circumstances that would alter this. Uh the current proposal is a good fit for an existing and approved residential site. The zoning board approval given previously affirms that the site is particularly suited for residential use and the proposed additional space will support the applicant's use and enjoyment of his own home. Amending the previous approval to include the second door sec second story recreational space uh as it was constructed uh just enhances the function of the space as a continuous part of the rest of the dwelling. Uh looking at the F, the site accommodates the F and it can be considered subsumed within the use variance for the single family home. Uh F is not typically a tool that's used to control residential use. In fact, in Milstone, you don't have an F requirement in any of your residential zones. And the F in this case is accommodated well on the site as the structure requires no relief for coverage and adequate parking is provided. So there's, in my opinion, no detriment proposed to these to the variances as they're proposed. Again, the board previously approved a Dvariance for residential use on the

site and the proposed alterations don't increase any detrimental impact. Uh the bulk standards in the BP zone, but that we're asking request for are intended to control uh non-residential use and structures. And when I compared it to the R80 zone, which is the residential zone in which this size lot would be most appropriately considered, the proposed setbacks would be conforming. Uh the new features will not be highly visible from either roadway as they're tucked behind the building. Uh so there's no visual impact from the variances that are being requested and the amendment to the 2017 approval would not significantly change the function of the site and these variances would not substantially impair the intended purpose of your master plan and zoning ordinance as the site already contains a dwelling.

If I may ask so the F I think two 2.20 is what is permitted for warehouse buildings and we're 285. There is no F anywhere in the town for residential development. Correct.

Um the imper I think the impervious coverage and building coverage I think are really good tools for the board to understand just how dimminimous the impact is on the property. The BP zone has this 20 40% rule. 20% um um 20% building coverage and 40% impervious coverage. And we're at 6.6% 6% compared to 40 and 3% compared to 20. There's a 3% of the properties covered by buildings with these expansions and 6.6% of the total impervious coverage um with all the relief that we're requesting. I think those tools are I'd ask that you consider those tools to be much more important than the F.

Anything further? Any Miss Miss Coffin, you testified that you looked at the another residential zone and the setbacks would be compliant. Did you also look at that for building coverage and impervious coverage and how this application would apply to that? Would would this be under what was proposed in a residential would be overdevelopment or this is minimal considering what we it'd be permitted if it was a residential use? Regarding those two requirements, pulling up my older outline which is a little more extensive. Um, the only new relief under the R80 zone that would be needed was the setback between structures.

So, if this was an R80 zone, you would comp that you would comply with building coverage. You would apply with impervious coverage. Not 100% sure from the language I had in my outline, but we certainly wouldn't be increasing any non-compliance. So, that implies to me that it would comply. Yes. Because we're increasing both impervious and building coverage here. So the answer just you don't it's okay. Yes. I just had to think that through but what is the percentage if you considered that? If you if you considered just what is um without the conservation property that I don't know what's the building coverage you're proposing now 3.0%.

So if you're if your building coverage is 3.0%. We have and McKillian cuts wrong. We have no residential zones that have less that on building coverage. Correct. Right. No. Yeah. Our building coverage and residential zones would be 20 10% 10 20%. Right. But if this isn't cumbersome the conservation property as well if it was not then what would the coverage be? I think did you count because we have the ordinance where we don't count wetlands as part of building coverage. Commercial. That's for commercial. That's for commercial. Oh, so if it's residential, you're able to use it. Okay, that was your that was your question, right? It would go to about it go about pretty sophisticated.

If we take twothirds of our property away, right? And then the number would go up by about three and that would take the that would take the 3.0 to something around nine 9%. Okay. 9% on the unencumbered still reasonable number.

Okay. Any other questions? I had a question in regards to the the garage. Obviously, there's got to be something put there as a um apurn a an access to it like a driveway. We had testified that no driveway that Yeah, that that was testified before. I want to make sure that that's going to remain as lawn. I mean, it's not terribly practical to build out a garage that you can't really drive any equipment or anything up. It's where Mr. Merkel testified is where all of his right now his garage is filled with lawnmowers and tools equipment

and he wants that for his car. This would be the storage area for all of those. I'm going to call his equipment and toys, but he specifically stated there's no access required for vehicles. He has a tractor that will go in and out of the building. Well, we could we could make an addition approval. There'd be no driveway uh to new garage edition uh including no stone, correct or other hard material for access of vehicles. And that that was Mr. Merkel's statements.

Yeah. It's one area that's got existing concrete to remain in the in the back there. One spot it'll end up there. We can hear you. It'll it'll be a um part of it gets cut off. The other part will end up being just outside the garage door, like the man door on that piece of the building. Okay. So, it'll just end up being a place to step out onto. It's on the plan. It's showing plan. Yes. McKinley, we have anything else to go over that we may not have covered?

I think I mean I wasn't here for the last meeting. I tried to familiarize myself with it from a planning perspective. I think Scott covered a lot of it. It's the F especially is not something that I would worry about. It's it's for warehouses and it's not what we have here. Um the major concerns associated with this were how the conservation easements were going to be taken care of, what was being placed in the conservation easement and uh what the DP was ultimately going to say. So if if the board is comfortable with what they've shown there, which I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, again does what the board said, you wanted the conservation easement to cover what the D was was identifying as wetlands and their respective buffer area. um and we have to get the clarification on it. But this is that's really more of an engineering thing than me. So I think from a planning perspective the use variance in the F are not uh not something that I'm worried about in the systems the details of the conservation

and you're also approving the fact that we're leaving the lawn and some of the fence in the buffer area and subject to approval by the Z. So, a condition of the approval is going to be based on getting the updated permit approval from the DP. Correct. And the zoning officer's clearance. Okay. D doesn't approve it, they're back here. May I ask clarification? The plans that um were submitted here, they show the dedicated for the conservation easement going just to the wetlands line and not including the buffer area which is required by our ordinance. Is that area also being in placed into which area are we talking about?

Sorry, I think the arrow is 50 foot short. So this section here except for this buffer averaging area and this area here under our ordinance That's the also required. That's the area they're getting approved to by the D to keep as lawn and fence. But our ordinance also our ordinance also requires this area to be placed in conservation. So there's a condition that they need approval from the town for that relief and that zoning offic but this area still will be placed in the conservation. Are they asking to not place this in conservation? I guess is my

the lawns would not be in the conservation ement. Well, I I I think that the conservation ement goes to the township. Okay. Yeah. And so what I recommend that they need a waiver from the township for the area that the DP has excluded for lawn the two lawn areas to be excluded from the conservation easement because that's a town it's a because we can't say hey town don't do that right and we don't and since it's it from my perspective it's a I think it's two things maybe is You're not looking to put this in the conservation area. That's correct.

Or are you looking for the conservation easement that's required to be filed to have a waiver to allow those things? I think that's where I'm trying I think it's the first one that they have to get relief from the township not to have that area in a conservation board from the township conservation because they could go they they could go to the township and say hey guys I'm required to do this but the DP says I can maintain my lawn there here's their updated permit town is that okay with you isn't

I don't want to speak for the township and they may say no that's up to the town it's not our And Greg, there's a third and and this is something that's between Andrew Ball and me initially, but it could be in a conservation easement and it could have an exception that says conservation except for maintaining a law, but the language is it's all in the ordinance. Milstone has an ordinance that Milstone's law requires all conservation to be accepted by an ordinance. Where it's going to make approval of the town however they want to do it. That was I just wanted Yeah, I I see what you're saying. You could do it one of three ways. Yeah. Know the board had a preference. We'll see what happens. Let's give you what the township wants.

Which brings us to you're a board of five and we need five and deter to use fair. Sure. There's a D. There's a D in it. And does the board have any comfort level in polling or if if not I it's malpractice for me to go with five. Yes. Comments instead of a Yeah, I agree because that what I was going to do, Mr. P, was kind of just discuss with the board to see if they have any questions, comments, concerns to to Mr. That would be great.

So, see where this may lie. I'm clear on everything. Okay. You have any concerns with anything? No. Okay. Um, I just my my only concern is just, you know, we do have to this time around follow things, cross the tees, dot the eyes, do exactly as the plans say so we don't end up winding back here because it, you know, there there seems to be a little bit of a breach and that's concerning.

Being honest, being honest, that's all. and previous dedications that's all complete filed and recorded and everything dedications of land are complete and the consolidation is complete. Okay. So I think that was one of but the conservation easements are not done right away dedication. Yeah. Right. The rightway dedications now but now everything's kind of hinging on the D approved plan or the administrative approval of the updated permit that will coincide with what's on the current plans. Yes. The it. Don't don't want to beat a dead horse. The permit doesn't have the language. The plan stamped does. So, we got to get the two of them to be the same,

right? So, if the D approves the plan, they did butterflies. And they approved the plan, but they didn't update the permit. That's because it was two days before Christmas. They had one foot out the door. But, well, this one came today from Laura. So, well, it was 122325 that it was stamped. So uh to expand on Miss Araya's comments what is there anything that we can do as condition I have I have it so that everything goes as you know the the as built is as approved well yeah so in my those inspections

well there's two things so the first um stop is the resolution compliance. Okay, that they have gotten all their approvals which is all prior to getting any building permits. Okay, and all the conditions and when I read into the record later says you need this prior to get a building permit. You need this prior to getting build. So the first the word I'm looking for the first gatekeeper, okay, is resolution compliance in the town saying, "Okay, here's your resolution. You needed to get D approval. You needed to file the conserva. You got the D approval. Great. You got the township approval. Have you filed your conservation mement? Here it is. Have you filed your updated permit? Here it is. Have you revised the plans for whatever conditions I put in? Yes. So, at that point, it's a check mark. You know, I have like 15 conditions. Check. Done. Check. Once all 15 are done, they get their building permit. The second gatekeeper is the inspections. I'm not considered a gatekeeper because the inspection look to see how things are built. They don't always look to say where it is. They'll look at a foundation, not say where it is. But we do have a condition that we require as built to confirm that what was actually built is consistent with the approved plans. That's our second biggest gatekeeper. versus they're getting all the stuff done, which they were supposed to do the first time, but they'll have to get done. And the second one is after they do it all before they get a CO, they have to give it they send a surveyor out there, get an ad built, and Matt takes it and says, "Yep, they built everything in the right place or they didn't. Violations move it,

right?" That's kind of how it works. But that's what happened last time, but I don't know what happened last Is there any violations or was it just revealed at this at this application? The build building permits were issued by the township for all that Mr. Merkel built and they shouldn't have been and and and we're not saying that that's the fault, but that's how it happened. I mean, Dan went downtown to with building permit applications. Um, not thinking he was doing anything improper and they gave him the building permits, right? They issued a permit. They issued a permit based on the plans that were submitted. The construction

something different was built and they still approved it. Oh, no, Mr. Langers. The plans that were submitted with the building permit matched what he built, not what you approved. Oh, the contractor went downtown with the plans. I got you. Dan had approved them. Okay. Nobody was had a sharp eye on 72 square feet extra mentor and the powder. So, if we know that can happen once, how can we stop? How can we prevent it from again?

We have a new software program and it allows me to put in a prior approval for land use. So anything that has come to the board. So they don't issue any permits from construction until they have prior land use approval. So I after this um hearing or whatever resolution is here, I would upload the resolution to our software and we share something. It gets a flag on the property and it will not be able to issue a permit until they get signed off from my office and then zoning. And my office doesn't sign off on it until Matt and the chairman and I all sign it. And Ken knows I like to make sure I have all my eyes dotted and te's crossed. That's our third gate.

Yes, indeed. She really is the first. I'm gonna be honest. She's the first and the last. She is. All right. So, it it's just that when this came to the board, it came to the board with an illegal bathroom and an additional square footage as being the issue. So, that's the reason why I pointed out your tee, dot your eyes, make it exactly the way that you planned it. That's all. Understood. Um, one more question just to clarify. That green area you're saying is proposed conservation easement area. The the green line, the green highlighted, the green line, not the green, not the the lawns.

The green areas, which is wetlands, our wetlands buffer. You're not proposing to put it in the conservation is unless Andrew Ball tells me to put it in. Andrew Ball's the township attorney. D doesn't require conservation eman. Our ordinance does. Our ordinance does. Yeah. I have to go through the township attorney's office to get to the governing body to get really short green line that may change depending what between the zoning officer and the township attorney. We have to figure out where that line is. Of the of there's of the three top ways of putting it into a conservation ement or not. One of them is to put it in with permitted activities. Okay. With exceptions.

Yeah. Okay. Thank you. So you could they could put it like you got this conservation of 17 acres, but on this plan this 100 square ft can be mowed. The other X acres can't be. So it's not that difficult. Thank you. You're talking about that area. I'll call it like the souththeast portion of the plan. There's green. There's two places. There's a southeast and north northeast northwest areas are wetlands and buffer but they're not showing it in the conservation e that's more like me the digital it's a little easier to see if you'd like. So, but

okay. Yeah, that's the one I was looking at. Just above the garden area has to approve right line. Yep. Thank you. And they are already disturbed areas. So, thank you. So, Mr. B, it's up to you. We stopped at four. I was just going to say we got Mr. Sh. I apologize. is not no as far as what I'm sorry additional any comments questions concern

no mine was you know really just that driveway which I have no no um confidence that after the property is sold that somebody's going to not put it want to put a driveway up to that garage and what would the um what would the uh regulate. How would that be prohibited? How would that be how would that come up? Goes smaller cars can get Well, you were putting a condition in, right, Greg? Well, yeah. Listen, there's

two ways to do it. All right. There's three ways. One is we have it as a condition of approval, which is obviously one we always do. Okay. Yeah. Two, if you're like someone down the road is not going to care. Okay. What we could require them to file the uh file the resolution as part of file the resolution with the county as part of resolution compliance. What that does is if Greg Vela buys that property, Greg Vela calls his title company and the title company gets their prior deeds, go get all the permits and we'll get a copy of this resolution. So Greg Vel buyer could go through it or his lawyer is going to be like you better read this because you're strict on a lot of stuff here

right before you buy the property and he'll never then is that going to stop Greg Vela to build it? No, you're never going to be able to do that. But it does provide appropriate notice that they can never say they weren't aware of it. Right. It does provide that. It just it's a notice. You can't stop it, you know, you know, it's just because there's there's no permit for putting in a driveway. No. and throw some stone down, right? You know, no one's ever going to see it. So, that's the best way is if if you want a notice of problem to file the resolution. You wouldn't have any problem with that, right? I would do it with a restrictive comment. Yeah, I'd attach it as a restrictive copy. And honestly, with everything going on in this application makes a lot of sense.

I think the whole if the board adopts a positive resolution, the entire resolution should be recorded. That's what that's what I said. And because of the importance of that clause, it could be listed as under a paragraph of special condition, something that's more bold font so that it's not missed. And I don't anticipate any changes from the DP once they get everything. Nothing's going to change on the plan because they already approved that plan. They just have to update the I think substantial changes. It would have to come back and then we get to review it all over again, right?

But I doubt it, but you never know. You never know. Okay. So, we have a lot of conditions and we have a lot of things hinging on the D updates, but overall I think we pretty much have a general consensus that we're moving this in the right direction. Would that be safe to say? I love it.

Mr. P, your call. I I think that if anyone had a reason for me not to vote ask for a vote this evening, you would have shared it with me. Mr. Chair, I'd ask that the board consider voting this evening, please. Fair enough. Thank you.

Um I think we've gone through the comments, so I'll do the um conditions. Uh I'll start with the one applicant obtain a uh amended uh D permit showing uh the the lawn areas cuz it's more than one and fence to remain approved from the D and the fence in the buffer that must be filed with the county. No permits will uh be issued until receipt and approved by the board engineer. Um conservation easement/exclusion is subject to approval by the uh town the the township committee and township attorney. Uh also condition of zoning off the clear permit. Uh no driveway to new garage edition including no sonar of the hard material hard material for access uh of vehicles to new garage edition. already did uh township approval could either be an exception uh or a waiver or within the uh conservation e with an exception to the area but that's up to the township committee uh applicant provided as built applicant to file a resolution uh with the mama county clerk uh Matts has uh outstanding uh payment of tax revision uh tax map provision fee of 300 which was for the first one it wasn't paid. Uh prepare and file conservation easement

that's been paid plus interest. Um variance plan should be revised to indicate all varianes required this application. If it's not been done we would require it. Uh, we already talked about NGDP approval, filing the conservation easement, placement of all easement markers, new tax map provision fee of $300, and let me see if I have zoning officers approval there. Quick question. I may have missed it. Did we open to public? No, I was just going to say that I'm waiting for Greg to pause for Greg. That's why I just tapped my phone to see what time it was.

No commercial buildings in any of the garage. No commercial uses or businesses in any of the garages. The same siding and roof of addition uh as the house talked about the fence. Yes, that that would subject any existing shed that still needs to be removed. One shed will be removed prior to CO. I was going to one will be one's already one's already gone. One's gone and the one that's still need one of these still has to come out.

We have no problem taking it down sequentially. We've got to build the first goat house, move the goats to take the old goat house down. So shed where goats live to be removed prior to CF. That's fine. Snap, crackle, and pop. The proposed new shed. We're aware that it does need to match the house in color and material. That's the ordinance. So, okay. That would be new condition. Is the garage door which way does the garage door face? Towards the green or towards the house? Towards the green. Okay, that makes sense.

Now we can open to the public at 8:44. Is there anybody from the public that would like to step forward and comment on this application? Seeing nobody, we will close this portion to the public. All right. Okay. We got everything covered, I believe. So, okay. This one had a lot a lot of moving parts, but I think we're almost there. We're just waiting on the D. So if anybody want to have any further comments or questions and we want to make a motion to approve or deny. Motion to approve.

Thank you. With the conditions I've outlined just about to say that. Thank you. I will second that with the conditions outlined by the attorney. Okay. Danielle Chairman Mustin. Yes. Mr. Araya. Yes. Mr. Katigan. Yes. Mr. Lampro. Yes. And Mr. Stinhoff. Yes. Motion approved.

You're meant to free hope on land that was given by Bruce Springsteen to Habitat and we need a use barrier. Seven people. One stands up.